I think that Neal Evenhuis may have overstated the case for "hypotype" in
his list.  Blackwelder (Taxonomy, p. 295) gives it as simply "a described or
figured specimen."  Blackwelder lists a number of other names with the
suffix "-type" and states that they should be used with great care as their
meanings are not always widely understood. Also, the inclusion of "type" in
such words infers a status that does not exist.

Some years ago I received a rather harsh message from an editor because one
lot of specimens in his institution were not included as "hypotypes" as they
had been figured.  I had to write him back that he had looked in the wrong
part of my manuscript, as his "hypotypes" were included as part of the type
series of a new species.  The "hypotytpes" were not the species under whose
name they were figured.

In my opinion it is a term that should never be used.  It is much better to
state "figured specimen."

dick p.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------